Its hard to say if nutritiondata is correct as methods of home preparation can vary so much.
There seems to be little real scientific data on the nutritional composition of any stocks. The belief that it is packed with good things like minerals largely seems to be based on nostagia, people use to do it so it must be good for you. People like the folks at WAPF seem to prefer to stick to their beliefs rather than actually find out if they are true.
Sure a decent stock has some good things in it but I think people used it because it makes things taste good and didn't waste the bones rather than because it was a superfood. I expect it is helpful if you are really ill too, it has easily digested protein in it.
I would be really interested if anyone else has any good data on the mineral content of homemade stocks.
Ok I found one small study looking at calcium content of homemade beef bone stock. http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy.webfeat.lib.ed.ac.uk/content/p7u013w7360016w2/fulltext.pdf
They split a beef vertebra bone in half and cooked it in a slow cooker, 90 degrees Celsius, for 24 hours in either neutral pH water or acidic water with vegetables. At neutral pH almost no calcium ended up in the water. After 8 hours of cooking in the acidic water at pH 4.5 with vegetables the stock contained about 35mg of calcium in one cup of stock. Cooking for a further 16 hours more did not increase the calcium much more. This is a little more than listed on nutritiondata but still will not add much to your overall calcium intake.
As bone has lower levels of other minerals I speculate that these would be lower than the calcium.
Beef stocks are good for you for other reasons, and taste good, but perhaps you shouldn't rely on it for your minerals.